The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1887-11-09

gave effect. As thatswas n Territorial statuts
passed by a Territorial Legislature for the gov
eminent OF a Territory over which the United
States has exclusive jurisdiction, IL came di
rectly within the operation OF Article OF the
amendments. which guaranteed to Hopt tria
by impartial jury Webster W.. Reid. IL How
ard, 4S7. 499. No one at that time suggested a
donbt OF the constitutionality Of the statute
and IL was regarded. both In the Territorial
courts and hero. as furnishing the proper rule
TO be observed by n Territorial court in impan.
cling an impartial jury in n criminal case.
A similar statute was enac cd in New YORK
May 3, 1872. Acts of 1872. g AIS. New York
April Is 1873. acts Of 1873. l6s, act 1T, Howell
statute Of 9, so. and also in Nebraska, compiled
statutes OF Nebraska, 1885. p SsS. and Criminal
the statute OF New York was sustained by the
Court OF Appeals Of that State in Stokes vs.. the
People, 50 New York, l64 to l72, decided June
10. 1873, and 1t has been acted upon without OBJ
jection ever since. So far we have been able
TO discover no doubt has ever been entertained
in Michigan or Nebraska OF the constitutionality
OF the statutes of those States respectively, but
they have always been treated by their SUI
preme Courts as valid both under the Constitu-
ton OF the United states and under that OF the
State. Stephens Va. the People, 80 Michigan,
739 To 745; Ulrich W.. the People. 80 Michigan,
2f5 Murphy vs. the State. 10 Nebraska, $685.
Indeed, the rule OF the statute OF illinois, as
IL was construed by the trial court, is not ma
terially different from that which has been
adopted by the courts In many of the States
without Legislative action. Commonwealth VS..
Webster, Cushing 295: Holt Vs. the People.
- Michigan, 22i State We. Fox, | butcher, $50
Ostrander vs.. the Commonwealth, Leigh, 7S0
State va. Ellington, Wendell o. Smith VS..
Games. Scam, 81. See also an elaborate note
to this last case in ~ A. M. dec. 52l, whore a
very large number Of authorities on this sec
tion are cited. Without pursuing this subject
further IL is sufficient to say that we AREA en-
tsrely with the Supreme Court OF Illinois in the
opinion that tho statute on its face construed
by the trial court is not repugnant to Section .
OF Article OF the constitution of that State.
which guarantees to the accused party in every
criminal prosecution u speedy trial by an i'm
partial jury OF the county or district In which
the sffenss is alleged to have boon committed.
AS this is substantially the provision of the
Constitution of the United States, CO which the
petitioners now rely 1t follows that even IL
their position as To tho operation and effect Of
that Constitution is correct the statute is not
open to the objection which is made against it.
THE CHALLBNGED JURORS.
We proceed then to the consideration of the
grounds Of challenge to the jurors, Denker and
Sanford. to see II, in the actual ADMINISTRATION
of the rule of the statute by the court the
rights of these defendants under the Constitu-
ton OF the United States were in any way i'm
paired.
The court then gives extracts from the exam
ination OF Deaker by the defense, and says that
no was challenged for cause by the defendants,
but before any decision was made thereon he
was questioned by the court. and the courts ex-
animation is appended "The court =" il contin-
ues, "thereupon overruled the challenge but
before tho juror was accepted and sworn he was
further examined by counsel for the defend
ants" This examination is also reprinted from
the record The court then saws that the ex-
animation Of the juror by counsel for the de-
PENDANTS closed and he was examined BY the
attorney for the state and citations given
from the questions and answers in this exam
ination. The opinion continues 4
At the close Of the examination neither party
challenged the juror peremptorily, and he was
accepted and sworn. When this occurred it was
not denied the defendants were still entitled to
l43 peremptory challenges, or about that num-
Der.
When Juror Sanford was called he was first
examined by counsel for the defendants. The
examination is here quoted.l At the close OF this
examination on the part of the defendants the
juror was challenged on their behalf for cause
and the attorney for the State, after it was as
certained that all the peremptory challenges
of the defendants had been exhausted, took
up the examination Of the juror. (The result
OF this examination is given RS is the ruling
Of the court denying the challenge to over
rule for cause, and stating that as the peremp-
tory challenges Of the defense are exhausted
Sanford is Juror to try the case 80 far as tho
defendants are concerned). This was accepted
by both parties, the court says, rs true state
ment of the then condition Of the case. and
after some further examination OF the Juror,
which elected nothing OF Importance in con-
nection with the inquiry, no peremptory chal-
.rnge having been imposed by the State, San
ford was sworn as Juror. and the panel was
thus complete.
This, so fur as we have been advised pre-
sents all there 10 in the record which this court
can consider touching the challenge OF these
two jurors by the defendants for cause.
In Reynolds vs.. the United States. % u. S.
145 to 156, it was decided by this court that in
order to justify the reversal OF the judgment of
the Supreme Court OF the Territory of Utah for
refusing to allow challenge to n Juror in u
criminal case on the ground that he had
formed and expressed an opinion as TO the is
sues to be tried. it must be made clearly to up
pear that upon the evidence the court ought to
have found tho juror had formed such an opinion
that he could not in law bo deemed impartial
The case must be Que In which It is mani est the
law left nothing to the conscience or discretion
of the court. IL such is the degree of str ctness
which is required in the ordinary cases Of writs
from one court TO another in the same general
Jurisdiction We ought to be careful that it is
not at all relaxed in a case like this when the
ground relied on for the reversal by this court OF
a judgment of the highest court OF the State is
that the error complained of is so great to
amount to q denial by the State of trial by an
impartial Jury to one who is accused of crime
We unhestatngly of the opinion that no
such case is disclosed by this record
We come now to consider the objection that
the defendant Spies was compelled by the court
to be a witness against himself. He voluntarily
offered himself a witness in his own behalf
and by so doing he became bound to submit
himself to a proper cross-eXamination. The
complaint is that he was required on cross-eX-
animation TO state whether he had received a
certain letter which was shown, purporting
and addressed to him, and upon his
saying that he had, the court allowed
the letter to be read IN evidence against him
This, it is claimed. was not proper cross -exami-
nation. 1t is not contended that the subject TO
which the cross-examnation related was not
pertinent to the issue to be tried, and whether Il
cross-examination must DO confined to matters
pertinent to the testimony in chief, may be
extended to the matter in issue, is certainly a
question of State law in the courts of the State
and not the Federal law
Something has been said in argument about
an alleged unreasonable search and seizure Of
the papers ana property of some or the defend
ants. and their use in evidence on the trial OF
the case. Special reference is made in this con-
was cross OK am med but we have not been re-
ferred to any part of the record in which it APP
pears that objection made to the
use Of the evidence on that account and
upon this point the Supreme Court of the
State in that part of its opinion which
has been printed with this motion remarks as
follows; -rhe objection that the letter was
obtained from the defendant by an unlawful
seizure is made for the first time In this court.
Such an objection this, which is not sug-
gested by the nature of the offered evidence,
but depends upon the proof OF an outside fact,
should have been made on the trial The defense
should have proved that the Most letter was
of the letters illegally seized by the police,
and should then have moved to exclude, or OPP
posed. its admission, on the ground that it was
obtained by such illegal seizure This was
not done, and, therefore, cannot consider
volvod.-
AT CHICAGO.
How tho Prisoners Received the News
Police Precautions.